Unsorted FBI Documents

Attachment to Independent Case Review Report •
• ForCDRU # 6712 Case file # 95-266215 -

Material Examiner:

Remarks:

Case resulted in trial. Laboratory Examiner Malone (RQ) could not make tne trial,,
therefore ;the transcript provided is the testimony of Laboratory Examiner Chester Blythe
(VB) who testified to Malone's, work. ’ ’

i

INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson , , y' . -

Area(s) of Expertise: Hair and Fiber .. • _

Review commenced at: 8:45 AM (Time), , 03/16/2001 (Date)

File#: 95-266215 . 'V, . •

Laboratory's): 50401052 . .

. . 50717018

Reviewed

Examiner(s) & Symbols
Not Reviewed

Reviewed.

Not Reviewed

: rq

.Xn

D ' ,

□ .

□

wz

a

□

' □

- t

□

□

; — . — r—

□

■ □.

... Materials Reviewed

Trial-testimony transcript(s) of: Chester Blythe . ~ ,

' • ■ Testimony Date(s): unknown

Laboratory Reports):-

Laboratory Number: 5040 1 052-

Laboratory Number: 507i7018-

Laboratory Number: *

Examiner-Bench Notes of: -RQ ,

Laboratory Number:. 50401052

50717018

Pages: H3rl31*

Date:

Date:

Date:

July 3, 1985 .
July 26, 1985

Page 1 of . 4
Initials:- .fair

Was any other-material reviewed? Xo Yes □ -No •

If yes, please identify .and/or describe the material: Submitting agency letters (dated 3-28-85 and 7-8-85)

Results of Review

File#: 95-266215 • Item or Specimen # Reviewed: Q1,K3,K4

Review of La boratory Report(s) and Bench Notes:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the
methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination^)?

□ Yes DNo X a Unable to Determine

Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory reports) supported and adequately documented in
the bench notes? — . □ Yes XoNo □ Unable to Determine

Review of Testimony:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or pn
additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine”- Responses

□ Transcript not available.

3) Testimony consistent with the laboratory report(s)? ■

• • XO Yes

□ No

□ Unable to Determine

4) Testimony consistent with the bench notes?

□ Yes

X o No

□ Unable to Determine

5) Testimony within bounds of examiner’s expertise?

Xo Yes

□ No

□ Unable to Determine

Comments

• (Set forth by above question #, if applicable.
Use “Additional Comments” Sheet, if needed)

File #:• 95-266215

#1: With microscopic hair comparison, even with the best notes, there is no way to determine the comparison
was performed correctly. It appears that tw o hair examiners compared the hair.and agreed to the match. -

#2: The examination results set forth in die laboratory report are supported by the bench notes, but the
documentation is margi nally adequate. The.notes are not dated and are in pencil. RQ uses abbreviations to
indicate the microscopic characteristics of the hair. Some of these abbreviations are difficult to interpret. The
technician does not document that any hair were recovered from Ql, yet one hair from Q1 was determined to
match ihe suspect’s head hair. ‘ - . . .

testified that he compared the Ql hair to the victim and suspect’s head hair samples and

Review completed at: 9:45 AM (Time), 03/16/2001'

. Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour): . 1 :Q0 hour

(Date)

I hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review
are fully documented on this report consisting of a total pf pages.

fi- /! ■■■ ■ ' ‘

mw

(Signature)

03/16/2001

(Date)

Page ' 3‘ of 4

• Initials:.

Additional Comments '

(Set. forth by question #, if applicable)

File#: 95-266215

#2 (continued): determine d that the Ql hair matched the suspect’s head hair and was dissimilar to the victim’s
head hair. The .bench notes to document [examination and comparison were not provided for review.

#4: The testimony is not consistent with the bench notes for the same reason noted in #2. [testified , that .

he compared. the Ql hair to the victim and suspect’s head hair samples and determined that the Q1 hair matched
the suspect’s head hair and was dissimilar to the victim’s head hair. The bench notes to documen

examination and comparison were not provided for review.

#5: It is note- worthy to compar

estimony to Malone’s testimony in other hair comparison cases.